Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Capitalism

Task interests

byelf2007's interests

Aggregate demand. User:byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

Metallurgist's interests

I just do what I can. I tried working on Gold standard. I did put a nice criticism on the WHO's ranking of healthcare systems, altho thats the frontier of our territory. Im looking at Phillips curve now.

Regushee's interests

It seems as though this project was begun in an attempt to give a positive influence on some articles that were being written with a negative POV; I am willing to contribute towards a positive influence of articles under review. I also prefer, as a personal preference, the term Free Market Economy instead of Capitalism, but I realize that Capitalism is more recognizable. (Regushee (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Yakushima's interests

Having "turf", as I understand the term, is tantamount to WP:OWN. Wikipedia is a commons. How about term that reflects that fact? Yakushima (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I hardly saw the term "turf" as implying ownership of particular articles. Posting the term "turf" here did not fall within any of the ownership warning signs or indicators. Rather, setting up tasks for a Project is a normal and expected process. In any case, I've modified the term.(Perhaps stewardship would have been a better term.) Yakushima, I ask that you do the necessary edit for this particular section because I do not want to be seen as refactoring your comments. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)16:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Other issues

Austrian everywhere?

The list of econ topics mentioned as candidates for added discussion in Austrian terms is quite long. If you're going to discuss capitalism from a neutral point of view -- an announced objective of the project -- why wouldn't you give equal weight to including Marxist perspectives on capitalism? Certainly, the fact that one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world is run by avowed Marxists would suggest the Marxist perspective on capitalism is a good long way from dead. Would a casual observer be wrong in inferring this Wikiproject really amounts to little more than POV-pushing Austrian econ? Yakushima (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the length of the list, I think it is appropriate to give weight to the Austrians regardless of the fact that Marxists are in charge in China. Saying that Marxism should be given weight within the Capitalism project is akin to saying that each WikiProject religion project should give weight to counter or other religions. That is, should WikiProject:Brahaminism editors give weight to Shaminism perspectives as well? No. Editors interested in Marxism (or Shaminism or Brahaminism) are certainly welcome to develop a WikiProject:Marxism. --S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bzzt: bad analogy. The article on one religion might include NPOV views of that religion as seen from other religions, where they are relevant to the topic. But capitalism has been looked at from every economic, political (and for that matter, religious) point of view, and those views should be given due weight. To imagine that the Marxist view of capitalism is utterly irrelevant is to pretend that there was no history-shaping ideological and geopolitical clash in the previous century. That won't wash. Yakushima (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm not talking about "giving weight", but about giving due weight. If you're unfamiliar with the guidelines and policies on this, see WP:UNDUE. Yakushima (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I added those topics because they are within the scope of this article and I'm not the only one in this group. You're welcome to add topics if you join this group. Also, it's worth mentioning that Austrian School is essentially the "Capitalist school of economics" and that there's a serious lack of its interpretations on economic topics on this site. Finally, I request that you refrain from using this discussion page until you are a member. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 September 2011

Editors, please note that IAW Talk Page Guidelines any user may add to talk pages. Discussion guidelines apply to articles and projects. --S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Austrian School is essentially the "Capitalist school of economics"" -- sorry, but that's very POV.

Milton Friedman -- is he not in the "Capitalist school of economics"? He was not an Austrian - actually, he said himself that his basic conceptual toolkit (as with all other mainstream economists of his time) derived from Keynesian econ. (See his notorious "we're all Keynesians now, but none of us are" equivocation). Friedman also said that, for the most part, the New Deal was justified as a case of when "the short run deserved to dominate." [1]. I don't believe that's the Hayekian view (although Hayek did say in The Road to Serfdom that a basic social safety net -- including universal health insurance--was necessary, so there were certainly parts of the New Deal he had little problem with.)

Joseph Schumpeter (despite being Austrian by birth, and despite having some Austrian-school leanings) was not, strictly speaking, Austrian. Outside of the Austrian school, it's hard to find a more ardent cheerleader for capitalism than Schumpeter -- nor one more distressed and depressed by the prospect of socialism.

Would you say that neither Friedman nor Schumpeter is in "the Capitalist school of economics"?

For that matter, Keynes (an insurance company executive for much of his career, as opposed to Hayek, who was always an academic) thought the basic point of his strategy of deficit-spending during recessions (to be balanced by fiscal conservatism in boom times) was to save capitalism from its own very exceptional and occasional failings -- and, if necessary, to save it from Bolshevism, which he intensely despised. I would class Keynes in the "capitalist school of economics" (if there is such a thing), along with Friedman and Schumpeter, since they all saw the free market and entrepreneurialism as the lifeblood of modern economies, and simply differed in details of how and where government should offset the failings of markets.

Please don't tell me that your interpretation of "capitalist economics" is "total laissez-faire." That, I'm afraid, is a view of that matter that must be treated under WP:FRINGE. Not even Hayek subscribed to it. I think you're left with von Mises. Maybe. Yakushima (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Google Scholar on "capitalist school of economics": zero hits. Just in case you're wondering why the link is red after all these years. Yakushima (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yakushima's concern at the top of this thread. This WikiProject seems far more concerned about Austrian economics than capitalism. BigK HeX (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Austrian School is essentially the "Capitalist school of economics"" is one editor's comment. It is not and should not be incorporated into the Project goals, scope, etc. True, the AS is overweighted in terms of open tasks, but that listing is certainly subject to adjustment and improvement as the Project matures. Similarly, the Project needs work to identify the best scope of the Project.--S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Would a casual observer be wrong in inferring this Wikiproject really amounts to little more than POV-pushing Austrian econ?"

First of all, the bit about a "casual observer" is humorous to me. Are they the standard we set for ourselves, or should we be more concerned with the views of people who are actually knowledgeable and passionate about wikipedia?

Anyway, anyone who's a part of this project can create open tasks. So, essentially, the complaint here is "There's this one guy (who happened to start this group, so I guess he likes improving wikipedia) who made a list of a bunch of articles s/he wants [more or some] Austrian perspective on. Therefore, this group appears to amount to little more than an Austrian School group...and I won't create any open tasks so it can stay that way" Actually, this is a group concerning itself with capitalism. So, you could create a task to improve the coverage on the free-market roads page if you wanted to (and many more). Just because I want to cover AS in a bunch of articles doesn't mean "this group = Austrian". Perhaps someone will include a list of 100 capitalism topics they want more Marxian perspective on (and I won't complain, although someone by the same reasoning could cry "This is a Marxism group!" and revel in their lack of creating tasks--seriously, if you don't like how many AS tasks there are, add some non-AS tasks).

At this point, someone might point out that AS does not equal capitalism. The reason why AS needs to be a focus of this group is because AS is essentially the capitalist school of economics. I'm NOT saying "capitalism = laissez-faire". However, AS is basically advocacy of capitalism in its purest form. Therefore, it is important to a project that wants to improve coverage of capitalism on this site to improve coverage of AS on economic topics because that is essentially just improving the coverage of capitalism on this site (the goal includes "related topics", which includes most economic topics). This is akin to focusing on Marx's theories for a socialism wikiproject.

"But capitalism has been looked at from every economic, political (and for that matter, religious) point of view, and those views should be given due weight."

So go ahead and add the Marxism tasks. It's not like I'd have a problem with that.

"Milton Friedman -- is he not in the "Capitalist school of economics"? "

The capitalism page says "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit". Therefore, in it's purest form, we'd have freedom of currencies and banking. Friedman doesn't want laissez-faire. While Friedman can be called a capitalist, my point is that it's important for us to represent those who advocate the purest form of what this group is concerned with. And since basically any economic topic would fall under the scope of this project, you can go ahead and add 100 tasks concerning Monetarism.

Finally, it's natural for wikiprojects to focus on tasks which would generally add more coverage for things that exemplify the views of those involved. There's nothing wrong with adding content to wikipedia, and I hardly see how a capitalism wikiproject being disproportionately focused on AS means it is no longer a capitalism wikiproject--if you don't like how it is, add more tasks. User:byelf2007 (talk) 16 September 2011

byelf writes:

"AS is basically advocacy of capitalism in its purest form."

Ah, some progress at last: you say AS is advocacy. If it were a school of economics (not to speak of this supposed "capitalist school of economics"), it would go wherever theory, observation and experiment actually led its researchers, regardless of where it led -- whether toward or away from laissez-faire.

If we accepted your characterization, we would need to treat AS as a political tendency. Fine with me.

Now comes the part with the logical fallacy:

"Therefore, it is important to a project that wants to improve coverage of capitalism on this site to improve coverage of AS on economic topics because that is essentially just improving the coverage of capitalism on this site."

No, it would only be important to improve coverage of AS up to a point, past which you would be giving AS WP:UNDUE weight. You might want to (re-?)familiarize yourself with that part of WP:NPOV policy. You're also assuming that AS coverage is, on balance, inadequate now. If I had to bet, I'd say the quite the opposite: that there are far more business, political and economic articles on Wikipedia that have long since exceeded the WP:UNDUE point with AS than are currently falling short of the right amount of coverage (although those articles undoubtedly exist as well). Yakushima (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

On AS as advocacy: I said "basically". My point is only that if you adhere to AS, then you basically think the free market will generally give you the best economy.

On undue: You provide no arguments here--only assertions. You even say "if I had to bet" instead of "I think". Economics articles are within the scope of the project. You'll also note that "liquidity trap" has no criticism section. There are people out there that think it doesn't exist. Should we not allow criticism of the liquidity trap?

Also, you said you're fine with there being an AS wikiproject, and yet you say "You're also assuming that AS coverage is, on balance, inadequate now." So what would this AS wikiproject do exactly? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Scope of Project

From WP:PROJGUIDE: "The pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there may develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed." and "To be effective, a WikiProject must foster not only interest in the topic of the project, but also an esprit de corps among its members. When group cohesion is maintained—where, in other words, project members are willing to share in the less exciting work—a WikiProject can muster the energy and direction to produce excellent articles systematically rather than incidentally."

User:Yakushima's recent edits do not comport with these guidelines. Perhaps later, when the project is more mature, his goals or proposed expansion of the project can be incorporated (with the consensus of Project members), but for now I am deleting Yakushima's edits as unhelpful. --S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing -- please discuss on this page

Editors (and members in particular) are requested to discuss Project related issues on this Discussion page. Raising Project related issues or concerns outside of this page (for example, here: [2]) does not foster collaboration or consensus. --S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If editing within a project has been tendentious so far, seeking help outside the project (as I did) is hardly inappropriate. And editing within the project has been tendentious so far. Yakushima (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am seeking to avoid the tendentious editing that has plagued some of these economics articles. (And if my remarks or edits are not helpful, please let me know and describe how.) In this particular issue, I have no objection to going outside to solicit opinions, but WP:POLICY asks for appropriate notification when such solicitation is undertaken. If there was a deliberate failure to give notification -- which could give rise to a canvasing issue -- such a failure would be another example of tendentious editing. I hope my posting on the other page adequately lets other editors know that this is the best page on which to work on consensus. --S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms articles

At what point does something warrant its own criticisms article? If we shouldn't have a "Criticisms of Keynesian economics" or "Criticisms of Austrian School" article, then why have any of the various criticisms articles we already have? Where's the "bright line"? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

No bright line, I'm sure. My guess is that Criticisms of Socialism, Criticisms of Islam, etc. were fraught with POV, WEIGHT, WARRING issues. As Gwen has said, there is probably no surer way to stimulate another edit war than to set up a criticism article. I regret that another talk page comment of mine brought up the idea.--S. Rich (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So we're supposed to get rid of all of them? The pages you mentioned still exist. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

Absolutely not. As mentioned, I bet those Criticism articles came about only after much tendentious editing. They are the exception, and as the exception they may break the rules but that does not justify our creating yet another criticism article. The overall policy is to avoid such articles.--S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

More capitalist economists

The template Template:Capitalism appears to be missing some important capitalist economists in its section on people. I got these names from the article on Ludwig von Mises: Frédéric Bastiat, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Henry Hazlitt, Carl Menger, Jean-Baptiste Say, Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, Friedrich von Wieser.
I also wonder why John Maynard Keynes is included since his theories undermine capitalism. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Important Article in need of Critique

Hi, I am making revisions on the current stub entitled "Depleted community". Depleted communities are important to study in the area of capitalism because capitalism, or its improper practice, has been identified as one of the main causes of the creation of depleted community. These communities experience economic decline, after a period of growth, due to uneven development, which some say is an inherent part of capitalism. In researching this claim, we find that depleted community's economic decline leads to poverty and other social issues. In my revisions I will explore Capitalism's role in the creation of depleted communities, including its role in industrialization and public policy. Thus, in exploring capitalism, it is important to rectify or at least understand, the communities that have been negatively affected by it. Any constructive criticism would be appreciated by me and by this issue, which would obtain some much needed attention by this WikiProject! Thanks, Njeri Muturi (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for editors to access free research databases!

The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to capitalism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

• Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)